Your Rights During School Disciplinary Investigations
By: Svara Borse
The scrutiny and consequences of a disciplinary investigation can change a student’s academic future in an instant. Beyond school administrators, students face complex legalities that dictate what the school can or cannot do. This reality becomes even more complicated as the students’ protections depend entirely on the funding and nature of the institution.
Public schools are legally recognized arms of state and local governments, and are therefore bound by the U.S. constitution through the principle of “ state action.” Meanwhile, private schools operate independently and are widely governed by contract law. This key difference shapes the nature of student protections, determining the level of protections students receive in school disciplinary investigations.
Students in public schools receive Fourteenth Amendment protections, guaranteeing their right to due process before they are deprived of their education; section one of the amendment states that no state can “…deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Because public education is operated and funded by the government, the Supreme Court recognizes it as a legally protected property interest. The case establishing this right is Goss v. Lopez (1975), in which several Columbus Ohio students were suspended for 10 days without a hearing post racial tensions in a school lunchroom. Though the school district argued that temporary suspensions do not require constitutional intervention, the Supreme Court ruled that even a temporary denial of education can damage a student’s future and reputation immensely. Because of the Supreme Court’s determination, for short-term suspensions (10 days or fewer), public schools are required to provide the student with a notice of the charges against them, a walkthrough of evidence, and an opportunity to present their side of the story.
Besides due process, public school students also possess critical protections against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment. In broader contexts, the Fourth Amendment protects people’s privacy by mandating government officials to secure a warrant—which they can only obtain through “probable cause”—before conducting a search. In New Jersey v. T.L.O (1985), the Supreme Court determined this constitutional right applies within education too. The case began when a student, T.L.O, was caught smoking in a school bathroom. When caught, the assistant vice principal searched her purse for cigarettes, and found marijuana, rolling papers, and evidence of drug dealing. T.L.O claimed the search violated her privacy, but the court balanced students' rights to privacy with the school district’s need to enforce rules and maintain order. Ultimately, they ruled that students haveFourth Amendment rights; however, school officials do not need a warrant or probable cause, they only need “reasonable suspicion”—a lower, more flexible legal standard, an assertion that the search will turn up evidence that the student violated the law or district rules. Furthermore, the scope of the search must be reasonable and not intrusive in terms of the students age, gender, and nature of the investigation.
When addressing private schools, the reality dramatically shifts. Because these private schools are separate institutions, their administrators are not deemed to be actors of the state. Considering this, they are excluded from the constraints of the fourth and fourteenth amendments. Instead, the legal relationship between a private school administration and a student is governed entirely by contract law, where the terms are laid out in the school’s enrollment agreement and students’ handbook. Therefore, if a private school investigates a student, they are only required to follow their own written policies outlined in the previously mentioned documents. Unless the school fails to follow its outlined policies or violates federal anti-discrimination statutes, courts are generally hesitant to intervene in private school disciplinary matters.
Ultimately, the nature of the institution that the student learns in dictates the rights they have when facing disciplinary action. While public school students have constitutional safeguards under the fourth and fourteenth amendment, ensuring them due process, privacy, and a reasonable scope of investigation, private school students must rely entirely on the promises outlined in their contracts and student handbooks. Understanding these legal boundaries helps students effectively advocate for fairness when facing disciplinary action, ensuring that school administrators do not ignore the vital rights a student has.
US constitution amendment 4
US constitution amendment 14
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/469/325/ — New Jersey v. T.L.O
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/419/565/ — Goss v. Lopez